The requirement of proving a Will per Sections 63 and 68 is essential for establishing its validity regardless of its registration.

For Appellant : Ms.Zeenath Begam For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Deenadayalan for R1 to R3 JUDGMENT This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated

29.02.2012 in A.S.No. 59 of 2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Pallipattu.

2.The Second appeal is at the instance of the first defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2007. The said suit was laid by the plaintiffs seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from anyway interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated in Sri Kalikapuram Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District in Gramanatham S.F.No.50/31 measuring 218 sq.mts., with the thatched house, terraced house constructed under Group House Scheme with electricity service connection.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to, as per their ranking in the trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

The suit properties are the ancestral properties of the 2^nd and 3^rd plaintiffs' father who is the husband of the 1^st plaintiff namely Munusamy Reddy. It is the vacant site with a small house constructed by the Government under the Group House Scheme in a portion of the property and the same is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The patta and E.B connection stands in the name of the 2^nd plaintiff and the house tax is also paid by him. The defendants without any right or interest in the suit property, attempt to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the patta was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiffs and that they do not have any right or title over the suit property. The plaintiffs' never lived the suit property and that they are living separately at Vallalar Sabapathy Nagar situated near the suit Village. The plaintiffs left the said Munusamy Reddy unattended and the said Munusamy also did not take care of his father Naina Reddy. The said Naina Reddy was taken care by one Govinda reddy. Hence, the said Naina Reddy executed a registered Will on 06.04.1968 in respect of the suit property. After the demise of Govinda Reddy his four children had equal rights in the suit property. The brothers and sisters of the defendant executed their ¾ shares in respect of the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 04.12.2006. Hence, the entire suit property belongs to the defendant. The house patta was transferred to the name of Gopinath and Gothandam, the sons of Govinda Reddy. Hence, the property is under exclusive possession of the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants have nothing to do with the suit property and they are unnecessarily impleaded in the suit. It is further stated that without seeking for declaratory relief, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. At trial, the plaintiffs were examined as P.W.1 and one Subramani was examined as P.W.2. 13 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. The 1^st defendant has examined as D.W.1 and one Gothandaraman was examined as D.W.2. 5 documents were marked on the side of the defendants. The Commissioner's report and Sketch were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions putforth in the matter, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for.

8.Challenging the same, the 1^st appeal has been preferred by the 1^st defendant and the 1^st appellate Court, on appreciation of the ma